4.7 Article

A novel candidate HPV vaccine: MS2 phage VLP displaying a tandem HPV L2 peptide offers similar protection in mice to Gardasil-9

期刊

ANTIVIRAL RESEARCH
卷 147, 期 -, 页码 116-123

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.antiviral.2017.09.012

关键词

HPV vaccine; Tandem 12 peptide; Bacteriophage MS2-L2 VLPs; Gardasil-9; Protection; Neutralization

资金

  1. US National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research of the National Institutes of Health [1R15 DE025812-01A1]
  2. US National Institutes of Health (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) [U19 AI113187]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause approximately 5% of cancer cases worldwide. Fortunately, three prophylactic vaccines have been approved to protect against HPV infections. Gardasil-9, the most recent HPV vaccine, is predicted to offer protection against the HPV types that cause similar to 90% of cervical cancer, 86% of HPV-associated penile cancers, and similar to 93% of HPV-associated head & neck cancers. As an alternative to Gardasil-9, we developed and tested a novel candidate vaccine targeting conserved epitopes in the HPV minor capsid protein, L2. We displayed a tandem HPV31/16L2 peptide (amino acid 17-31) or consensus peptides from HPV L2 (amino acid 69-86 or 108-122) on the surface of bacteriophage MS2 virus-like particles (VLPs). Mice immunized with the MS2 VLPs displaying the tandem peptide or immunized with a mixture of VLPs (displaying the tandem peptide and consensus peptide 69-86) elicited high titer antibodies against individual L2 epitopes. Moreover, vaccinated mice were protected from cervicovaginal infection with HPV pseudoviruses 16, 31, 45, 58 and sera from immunized mice neutralized HPV pseudoviruses 18 and 33 at levels similar to mice immunized with Gardasil-9. These results suggest that immunization with a tandem, L2 peptide or a low valency mixture of L2 peptide-displaying VLPs can provide broad protection against multiple HPV types. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据